Writing about gender, power, and privilege

The Russians allowed women in combat positions in the fifties,

That was Russia. This is the U.S.A.

I know, what I am saying is were not always the advanced masters of human rights, we came to this great land slaughtered the natives, took there homes, stole their ways, we proceeded to use this continent as a home for slavery, rebelling because rich white slave owning men decided they didn’t want to pay taxes, forced the already oppressed native americans and forced them on shrinking reservations, proceeded to start a civil war to right wrongs, kill millions for slaves to continue being slaves under a different name, then we oppress the poor, slaughtering them for trying to gain basic human rights in factories, media starting a war for money, then we send a hundred thousand to die in WWI in the middle of a flu epidemic, we then proceed to allow mobsters to control our cities, setting up concentration camps for Japanese while being disgusted by the Nazis, then we bomb innocent civillions, killing them in the worst slowest way, then we develop the same weapons that did this and we make them stronger and stockpile them, proceeding to slaughter thousands of civilians in a war we should not have entered, leaving when we were finally on the right path, we then got addicted to oil, consistently looking for the middle east to give us a quick fix, as we grow fat and lazy, and we are slowly watching the new beacon of freedom be destroyed by a shady government. We have done horrible things, and we are doing horrible things, I love this nation, but we are not what we pretend to be.

There Were Female Snipers in WW2

@mattnoles, you’ll never make everyone happy, so take everyone’s feedback seriously but stick with what feels right to you at the end of the day.

If you try to make someone else’s suggestion work and then change your mind, that’s your choice, so own it – you don’t need to justify it by calling other views ridiculous, or blaming “people” for your original choice. (And @Shoelip is right that you ought to double-check how you’re using scare quotes, by the way – it looked like you were questioning the personhood of your fellow forum members, though I imagine that wasn’t your intent).

A few general comments on the choice of genders discussion (which I’ve been listening to for a while without contributing anything of substance):

I like historical verisimilitude – both in historical fiction, and in fantasy worlds that are clearly drawing on a historical template. I also recognize that our ideas about “what really happened” are based for the most part on the histories told by powerful, privileged groups. We’re still only slowly reconstructing what the last couple thousand years were like from the point of view of the unremembered and silenced… and of course we’ll never be able to do so completely. So the “verisimilitude” I like the most is when I feel like a story breaks through some of the past millennia’s propaganda, to exceptional individuals from the downside of history who managed to make their stories heard.

With that said, I can think of four approaches to writing gender in historical CoG stories:

One. Historical realism - single sex protagonist. If the protagonist is male, this is relatively easy to write, and immersive for male readers; but it is distancing or alienating for many non-male readers. It’s also difficult to write without reinforcing historical wrongs; as @ScarletGeisha has said elsewhere, “the problem with old timey settings is that there is a strong tendency for both author and reader to indulge in the sexism and make excuses about realism.” Offering no choice of gender in a CoG game implicitly affirms the idea that historically, women couldn’t be heroes/warriors/rulers/criminal masterminds. Of course, that isn’t true. Women in those roles may have been exceptional… but they don’t have to be, and will become less so as we tell more stories that celebrate the strength, competence, and/or ruthless criminality of both sexes.

If the protagonist is female, it’s distancing/alienating for many non-female readers. It can also reinforce sexism rather than challenging it, if written poorly. Otherwise, great. But most people who write historical CoG games default to writing male protagonists, with all the problems noted above.

Two. Historical realism - choice of sexes. Very hard to write with true verisimilitude. In any given historical context, there would be a huge plot difference between someone rising to the top on the lowest difficulty setting there is versus a pretty damn tough one. You’d essentially end up writing two separate, barely overlapping storylines – and one might end up significantly less interesting than the other, especially if you want to write one set in e.g. a formal military context. (Matt, I’m glad on inclusion grounds that you’re writing the “girl disguised as a legionnaire” option… but I’m not actually sure it ranks much higher on the verisimilitude front than a simple Broadsides-style genderflip).

Three. Historical realism - both sexes. The reader doesn’t get to choose gender; rather, the story has two protagonists, one male, one female, and the perspective shifts between them. For example, a brother-sister pair who rise to power using all the avenues available to both sexes in a given historical context. You wouldn’t have to write two wildly different versions of each vignette, and could still explore both sides. It has the disadvantage of taking one major choice out of the player’s hands; and some people won’t enjoy playing someone of the opposite gender, even temporarily.

Four. Historical escapism. An “alternate history” world which goes for verisimilitude in nearly everything but excludes misogyny. Shatters immersion for some readers; shatters exclusion (and thus makes immersion possible) for others.

and of course, that brings us closer to
Five. Fantasy. Which can work any way you want; and it makes me chuckle to see some people’s suspension of belief utterly collapse at gender equality in fantasyland, but stay intact through a long, intent debate on the (fundamentally implausible) mechanics of vampire procreation. (@P_Tigras, feel free to tell me why that’s an unfair tease).

While 2 and 3 are commendably ambitious options, it seems to me that most CoG readers could be satisfied by a combination of 1 and 4 – which would also be vastly easier to write. Let those who value historical realism play as a male. Include an option to flip the PC to female for readers who come to CoG looking for historical escapism rather than historical realism. Label as such, so that both sides know what they’re getting. Don’t include the PC in the game art (which I’d advise even for a single-gender game, so that the player can envision the PC for themselves).

If the mere existence of a non-historical path destroys immersion for readers who don’t intend to play that path… well, that’s a level of sensitivity with which I struggle to sympathize.

@Havenstone lol, I’m a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to classic horror monsters. I’m not a big fan of authors or films who erase the major downsides (strong blood hunger, no ability to procreate -except- by exsanguinating humans, sunlight vulnerability) and make vampires just another misunderstood minority group. If they’re going to do that then I’d much prefer that they call them something different. It’s kind of like referring to Russians as Chinese. I can’t stop you if you want to call them Chinese, but I’m going to be picturing something quite a bit different and your story is going to come off as rather strange to me.

@Havenstone On the subject of suspension of disbelief and gender equality in historical settings, the issue isn’t “gender equality in fantasyland”, but gender equality that is due entirely to authorial fiat in an otherwise traditional society, without any thought to the changes that would would be required for that historical society to encourage, support and maintain the desired gender equality. Such a story can come across as naively pollyannaish to some of us.

@P_Tigras, the point of my tease was that the rules of “how vampires work” also come down to authorial fiat (though I can see how it’s easier to accept the traditional picture, i.e. the fiat of authors from 100+ years ago). Let’s be real here, when we talk about how e.g. vamps are super strong because they can force more blood to their muscles, it’s a fun bit of explanatory window dressing on something fundamentally implausible and unexplained (how it’s possible to have vampires in the first place).

The question of naivete hangs on how deep we think the roots of gender inequality go. Since I think most of it is socially and historically contingent, I can swallow the idea that in another world, things might well have developed differently – especially if magic accessible to both sexes from an early stage offset the male comparative advantage in muscle mass. (And who’s to say, in any given fantasyland, that that average difference in muscle mass remains, anyway?)

But we’ve been around that wheel before. I’m more interesting in a couple of comments you just made on other games: “Pronoun flipping didn’t work all that well for Choice of Zombies where all your companions had their pronouns flipped to match yours and never quite felt like real people.” Out of curiosity, did you feel that on your first read-through, or only on a second playthrough with the opposite gender?

I’ll agree that the characterization was thin in CoZ, but I’m not inclined to blame that on the pronoun-switching, since the same co-author’s written some quite vivid pronoun-switched characters in AotC. I assume they made a choice to write CoZ as more plot-driven and less character-driven. By the same token, I think @JimD’s vividly drawn characters would retain their individuality and credibility even if he adopted pronoun-switching with some mild text tweaks – for example, I could see Heather rewritten as a male love interest without losing the core elements of the character, most of the dialogue and interactions, etc. You disagree?

Second, “It’s pretty obvious that Choice of Romance/Intrigue was initially written for a female protagonist because there are a handful of immersion-breaking moments when male protagonists are made to feel small or effeminate.” I’m surprised to see you write this, because you’ve written thoughtfully on AotC and generally seem to distinguish well between male/female and masculine/feminine. AotC was written with a protagonist playing a role that is recognizably “feminine” in our historical context (seeking to advance through marriage, seduction, reproduction) – but the whole point is to create a fantasy world where this role is no longer sex-specific.

So just because a male reader may find his male protagonist adopting a role that seems feminine – e.g. being pursued by the Queen, rather than pursuing – that doesn’t mean that the role was originally written with a female character in mind. The whole point of AotC – beyond having fun – is to get readers to think twice about their gender assumptions. I’m sure you didn’t have the pursued/pursuer dynamic in mind when you talked about immersion-breaking moments… what moments were you thinking of?

1 Like

Vampire Biology - I agree that it’s window dressing. Nevertheless, underlying all the window dressing is an established archetype. And I just don’t have any interest in seeing large numbers of nice, kindly drow or sparkly vampires who can walk around during the day, make babies, and have no difficulty resisting blood cravings. You can only twist an archetype so far before it becomes something quite different. I respect the original fantasy and horror archetypes too much to enjoy seeing them adulterated to that degree. I recognize that this is a matter of personal preference however.

Zombie Exodus & Heather - I agree that Heather’s personality in ZE is the sort that would probably lend itself well to being gender-switched should the author choose. And that’s part of the problem with the character as a love interest. Don’t get me wrong, she’s an excellently written, highly vivid character. Nevertheless she isn’t particularly feminine, in the traditional sense, nor is Mindy, and that’s one of several reasons (another is that they’re also both caucasion) why I’ve been quietly lobbying @JimD for Kelly as an additional love interest, for those who’d prefer someone more feminine and/or non-caucasion.

Choice of Zombies Characterization - I’m not saying that the characterizion was bad -just- because the protagonist’s companions were gender-switched. Nevertheless they were all very blandly androgenous, and that didn’t help them stand out any. My issue with gender flipping is that if you’re going to do it, then you should also recognize that it’s going to impose limits on the character’s personality unless you’re willing to write some different dialogs and actions for male and female versions of the character. If you make -every- character androgenous to get around writing separate gender-specific dialog then it’s going to affect the feel of the game.

Affairs of the Court - I don’t have the slightest issue with women pursuing men. In fact I believe that women have just as much right to be the pursuer if they choose. :smiley: My issues with AotC are nothing that I haven’t already mentioned in older threads. There is a difference between being placed in a feminine role, and being made to feel small or effiminate. For example, when the Queen -effortlessly- picks your male character up off the balcony and sets him on the ground, lots of red flags go off in my head. Most men can’t lift other men off the ground without putting their backs into it. Effortlessly lifting someone off of a balcony is something a very strong man does to a lightly-built woman, not something women can generally do to men, not unless the man is very, very small. So now I’m picturing Augustina as Kong or Chyna of WWE fame, and neither is someone I consider attractive. I’m also picturing my male character as a 90 lb midget, which is not how I had been previously been picturing my character. The image of Kong or Chyna picking Verne Troyer (Mini-Me from Austin Powers) up off of a balcony and setting him on the ground is not one I find particularly compelling.

Another example is when your male character is having tea with your brother in law and his little girl, and you’re reminded of how when you were her age, having tea made you feel like a grown-up woman too. Uhhhhh…what?

[Ed: let the record show that after five months, Havenstone finally got around to conceding that these criticisms of the AotC genderflip were more than fair, and edited the thread to say so]

One issue that another male player brought up is the game’s preoccupation with clothes and jewelry. I can excuse this to a certain extent because your character is on display and wants to acquire a rich spouse in CoR while in CoI your character wishes to maintain your powerful royal spouse or lover’s interest. Looking shabby isn’t going to help you accomplish that. So even if you don’t personally place great importance on jewelry, you know others with power over you will judge you by your jewelry, and thus it has objective value. Nevertheless, it’s pretty clear to me from the little feminine slips that exist, that the author was primarily thinking from the perspective of a female protagonist. Honestly, I think those little slips make the story better for a female protagonist. I just feel they should have been made conditional on the character being female (or possibly transgendered).

Another issue I have with AotC is that I don’t find any of the love interests as women particularly compelling as love interests. They’re totally lacking in small feminine touches, and by feminine I do -not- mean docile or submissive. I fully expect a ruling queen to be strong-willed and accustomed to having her way.

I wrote:

And I just don’t have any interest in seeing large numbers of nice, kindly drow or sparkly vampires who can walk around during the day, make babies, and have no difficulty resisting blood cravings.

I just want to amend “can walk around during the day” to “equally comfortable in daylight and complete darkness”. Bram Stoker’s Dracula could walk in daylight, nevertheless he was still nocturnal, and his powers were greatly diminished while the sun was up. He also most certainly did not sparkle! :0&

@P_Tigras

Off-topic

have you ever read the Necroscope books?

On topic

Personally I dislike pronoun switching as it limits replayability (for me) I prefer that each gender is different.

To explain my point I will use some of cogs games

COTV - I’ve played this a lot with both male and female vampires and each game has been different. (I particularly love being a female of germanic descent as I really like her back story.)

COB - I’ve played it a few times but only once as a female as it was the same playthrough there was no reason personally to play as one a second time.

COR/AOTC - same as above a few times but only once as a female.

For me COV has the most replayability and makes me want to try the game as a female vampire to see how it changes

@Nocturnal_Stillness I completely agree with your assessments of COTV, COB & COR/AOTC. I also agree that COTV had the most replayability, and share your preference for distinct genders.

@P_Tigras

My preference for distinct genders is making me attempt to offer the same in my “Unnatural” game there is not much difference so far (apart from affecting who you can befriend and how one character treats you) I will try to add some more different (this includes a case only female characters can choose (with an alternate case for male characters)

The female-exlusive case involves the player infiltrating an anti S.R.T. group (the only reason a male character can’t do it is the group only accept female ‘virgins’ as they believe they are ‘purer’ - bit of a cliche but its an idea I can work on.

@Nocturnal_Stillness

Regarding Necroscope, I read Wamphyri many years ago, but my memory of it has fogged up over the years. I haven’t read any of the newer books. Why do you ask?

Regarding your game Unnatural, that sounds good to me. Although one wonders what happens if one of these virginal anti-SRT group members falls in love and loses her virginity?

@Havenstone France would have been a very difficult nut to crack for a woman seeking to take it over due to Salic Law which prohibited women from inheriting or owning land. And to fend off the English claim to France’s throne, Salic law had recently been reaffirmed and strengthened during Joan of Arc’s time. England would have been easier, and Spain would have been even easier yet.

Is it entirely inconceivable that Joan of Arc could have taken over France? No, I can see a path, albeit a difficult one to the throne. She’d have to win every single battle she fought so that everyone would think she had the support of almighty God himself (to the point where they had more faith in her than in the King and Church combined). She’d have had to win a decisive victory over the English forcing them to leave France permanently. All during this time she’d have needed to build a loyal cadre of officers that reported to her directly, and not to the King or to other nobles. And then once the English were gone, but before her troops dispersed, she’d need to turn around and pre-emptively accuse both the King and much of the high ranking church clergy of corruption, and use her army of followers to take over in the name of God. Despite all her heroic qualities, I don’t think the real Joan of Arc had the big picture understanding or mental flexibility needed to pull it off. She was still an illiterate and somewhat naive peasant girl at heart. Unfortunately for her, a combination of overconfidence and recklessness resulted in her capture by the Burgundians, and subsequent execution by the English before she could develop much beyond that.

@P_Tigras

I asked about the Necroscope series as you mentioned liking the Evil non sparkly vampires and I believe its a great vampire series and the vampires in it are quite evil in it (and I love the ideas behind the vampires themselves)

regarding an Anti S.R.T. group member losing their virginity I’d assume they’d be kicked out (they are going to be quite zealous about it, although I suppose they don’t go around checking whether everyone is still a virgin so I’d have to see when I start writing that particular case)

Look at marilyn monroe

Simply put, I absolutely HATE gender-locking. I’m a man, so when someone does FEMALE ONLY, I don’t like it. And when someone does MALE ONLY, I don’t like that either. So whatever people have been starting to think of me…BACK OFF! I’m just thinking of everyone here.

I don’t think anyone thinks badly of you. I do find your view a little narrow. Almost all media “gender locks,” particularly video games, which are the closest mainstream equivalent to COG games I can think of. When you play the Witcher you are locked as a male. When you play Tomb Raider you are gender locked as female. The issue isn’t of sex. Sex is simply another trait that the author can predefine or allow the players to define. The issue is of predefined characters, which is what the author is nodding towards when they gender-lock the game.

Your anger seems to stem from the expectation that every COG game allow Bioware-like customability, which may not be right for every game.